The city of Flavia Neapolis (now Nablus) in Samaria had been built by Flavius Vespasian. Its inhabitants were granted Roman citizenship. During the reign of Vespasian’s son, Titus, Justin Martyr’s family moved there. Justin was born around the beginning of the second century AD.
Justin moved to Ephesus and studied several Greek philosophies, including the Stoics, Peripatetics, Pythagoreans, and Platonists. He was converted in Ephesus around 130 AD when he met an old man who refuted Plato and told him of the prophecies and fulfillments concerning Christ. Another contributing factor in his conversion had been his observation of the heroism of other Christians in the face of death.
The record of Justin’s life after his conversion is somewhat sketchy. He did move to Rome, where, during the reign of Antoninus Pius, he opened a philosophical school. Here, he was able to engage in intellectual discourse and apologetic controversy; something he was prone to do anyway whenever possible. He subsequently traveled, but then went back to Rome. While there, he was examined and sentenced, along with six others, by Rusticus, prefect of Rome. He was martyred by decapitation around 165 AD during the reign of Marcus Aurelius.
Justin was the premier apologists of the second century. His concerns were twofold: 1) To refute the attacks against Christianity, and 2) to “show that philosophy is truth, reason a spiritual power, and Christianity the fullness of both.” Of all the early Church Fathers, he was the “most optimistic about the harmony of Christianity and Greek philosophy.” In fact, there was for him no clear distinction between theology and philosophy.
In Justin’s view, the various schools of Greek philosophy each saw different aspects of the truth, with Platonism being the closest to Christianity. As a result of this perspective, he did not consider that the acceptance of Christianity required a radical rejection of earlier world views. That is, earlier philosophical world views.
Justin did not share the same syncretistic aspirations toward pagan religions and worship. These, he claimed, were devil inspired imitations of truth designed to confuse. Philosophy, however, was different. Its sources were legitimate. It was either derived from the Greek philosophers reading the writings of Moses, or it came from the exercise of reason.
Justin’s high regard for reason was connected to his view of Christ as the pre-existent divine Logos. Thomas B. Falls writes, “In combining Plato’s world of ideas with the Word-concept of the Holy Scripture, he became the originator of the philosophical conception of the Logos.” This very combination, however, would seem to indicate that he missed the Johannine conception of the Logos. Henry Chadwick goes so far as to claim that the “man chiefly responsible for making the Logos idea at home in Christian philosophy was little influenced by St. John.” Some of the doctrinal explanations that Justin bases on this Logos idea are, to say the least, questionable. His theology was influenced by and dependent upon Greek philosophy. Too much so.
There was, in Justin’s thought, this positive aspect of philosophy: that “all rational beings share in the Universal Logos.” Since the various philosophies were emphasizing different aspects of truth this meant that they were delving into reason, or logos. Justin equated this with the Logos and argued that the ancient philosophers had had partial access to Christ himself. Both Abraham and Socrates, he explained, were “Christians before Christ.”
The more serious influence of his Platonist philosophy is seen in Justin’s explanation of Old Testament theophanies. They were all manifestations of the divine Logos. This view, in itself, is not a problem. It becomes one when we are given the reasons. He writes in the “Dialogue with Trypho” CXXVII:
…you must not imagine that the unbegotten God Himself came down or went up from any place. For the ineffable Father and Lord of all neither has come to any place, nor walks, nor sleeps, nor rises up, but remains in His own place, wherever that is, quick to behold and quick to hear, having neither eyes nor ears, but being of indescribable might; and He sees all things and knows all things, and none of us escapes His observation; and He is not moved or confined to a spot in the whole world, for he existed before the world was made.
There is nothing particularly wrong with this statement until Justin writes that last phrase, “…for he existed before the world was made.” Why, then, would the same reason not apply to the Logos? Chadwick notes that this view was successful until the end of the fourth century, when it was noted that its presuppositions lead to Arianism. This does not necessarily mean that Justin was, for all practical purposes, an Arian. Falls points out Justin’s use of imperfect terminology and excuses it by saying that he wrote when the terms were not yet fixed. Perhaps this principle should be used to give him the most charitable reading possible.
Despite his dependence on philosophy, he endeavored not to allow philosophical criticism to compromise traditional Christian beliefs. Christianity, not philosophy, was supreme. It was that towards which Greek philosophy unknowingly pointed. And he would use Christianity, or, more specifically, the Biblical doctrine and his relation to the world, to pass judgment on philosophy. Christianity was divine; philosophy was human. Christianity was supernatural; philosophy was natural. Christianity was certain; philosophy could only guess. Moreover, Christianity had supernatural proofs: miracles, fulfilled prophecy, and the rapid extension of the gospel.
Perhaps the most notable feature of Justin’s scriptural exegesis is that he sees Christ everywhere. Of course, this is hampered by the fact that some of his specific interpretations are overly creative. For instance, “The two advents were signified by the two goats” (Dialogue CXI); or his explanation of the blessing on the tribe of Joseph in Deuteronomy 33:17. He quotes the verse, “His beauty is [like] the firstling of a bullock; his horns the horns of an unicorn; with these shall he push the nations from one end of the earth to another.” And then he explains, “Now, no one could say or prove that the horns of an unicorn represent any other fact or figure than the type which portrays the cross” (Dialogue XCI).
Justin gets an ambivalent rating. On the one hand, he brings Christ to the forefront of scripture (despite the previous examples, he often does a good job of it). On the other hand, he also finds Christ in Greek philosophy. Who, then, is he really describing? He insists on a literal reading of scriptural history as the basis for seeing Christ, but then, he also insists on a literal, future, and earthly millennium. His reading of the Sermon on the Mount, according to Chadwick, is that it is a universal morality, wholly in line with natural law. Yet, just when he might be mistaken for a proto-liberal, he says this:
For if we looked for a human kingdom, we should also deny our Christ, that we might not be slain; and we should strive to escape detection, that we might obtain what we expect. But since our thoughts are not fixed on the present, we are not concerned when men cut us off…(First Apology XI).
This essay required talking about a "critical incident." Some of you may recognize it from an earlier post.
Duane hit me in the back of the head with a soup can. He was at least four years older than me and somewhat larger. I’m guessing at the age difference because he was in the next class up from me in a two-room schoolhouse. Normally, he treated me fairly decently, which was whenever his friends weren’t around.
My father had built us a swing set from some of the logs that he had chopped down for firewood over the winter. Duane liked to come over and use it. But when the others came over, he would throw the swing around the top so that it was too high to reach. I reacted by quoting the first and only verse of scripture that came to mind. “Ye are of your father the devil,” was not an optimal choice.
I’m now supposed to identify the cross-cultural skill involved. This is not easy. If the question is of the various cultures in which I have lived, being too cross-cultural somehow makes the term lose its meaning. What is the difference between a cross-cultural skill and just a plain old skill? In this case, I cried and went back into the house, never wishing to see Duane again.
Perhaps, however, a cross-cultural skill involves something entirely different from how a home culture reacts to a host culture. Maybe it is a way to move beyond cultural relativity by recognizing something transcendent. Our entire purpose in living among these various cultures was to present the gospel to them. We were bringing them a culture from which their value system could be judged. We had no desire to Americanize them, but we did want the salvation of individuals to be the transformation of their own culture. And so, at the suggestion of my mother, I began exercising a cross-cultural skill that would have been appropriate in any of the cultures I have lived in. I prayed for Duane. He was our only Athabascan convert (1.25% of the population).
What would I do differently the next time? It’s hard to tell. It’s not likely that there could be a next time. This may also point to the unfairness of using this as an example: I was awfully young at the time. I think I acted appropriately for my age. What did I learn from the event? Perhaps that the same skill could be used in other situations. This time, however, I would be older and able to do more than just pray. I also had a wider range of scripture at my command.
Now I was in a situation that couldn’t be limited to a single event; however, it would involve using the same cross-cultural skill that I used in the situation with Duane. While living in Washington, I somehow managed to get involved with several foster-boys. There was a family we knew who had been missionaries to Canada, and, upon retiring from the field, decided to become foster parents. It all started when they witnessed to a teenage boy who was in their home and asking about their faith. He became a Christian, his father was furious, and they nearly lost their license.
And then it occurred to everyone that I didn’t have a license to lose. I could come into their house and say anything I wanted to and the state could do nothing about it. And so I did. Many of these boys came from family situations that constituted a completely different cultural situation than that in the rest of the state. I believe that this is where having moved around among several different cultures helped.
I was able to adapt to their particular situation and communicate on their level. One, in particular, stands out. I tried as much as possible to encourage him in things that were strange to me but that he enjoyed. Hence the expansion of my musical knowledge from classical to grunge (believe me, differing musical tastes can be very cross-cultural). There were other aspects of his cultural upbringing that were not all right, so I judged them. He had been raised by liars, had always lived around them, and was one himself. I constantly caught him in lies and finally told him that I would refuse to believe anything he said until he consistently proved that he could tell the truth.
But this wasn’t all. I wanted to demonstrate a transcendent culture to him. I simply kept my word concerning anything I told him I would do. He liked to talk, so I would schedule Saturdays to spend the day with him and discuss anything that was on his mind. I tried as much as possible to accept him while at the same time rejecting sinful behavior. Could I have done some things differently? Most likely. Did my actions make a visible difference? This is beside the point. What matters is that I was able to use “cross-cultural” skills to provide a tangible demonstration of the gospel.
Conclusion
How am I supposed to answer the questions here? Every one of them assumes that I had always existed in a sequestered home culture when, all of sudden, I intentionally engaged another culture and became a wiser person for it. I don’t think I’ve ever tried to “engage another culture as fully as possible in a specified amount of time.” I never tried to be “deep and meaningful.” Somehow, it always seemed sufficient just to adapt to whatever cultural situation I was in at the time. It may be that I have a somewhat unique vantage point, but I do find the amount of cultural angst that I see in many Reformed circles to be strangely and pathetically amusing. I grew up immersed in this cross-cultural experience that everyone seems to want, yet I fail to see where it makes me any better.
I also find it hard to believe that a short-term visit to a different culture can make that much of a difference in perspective. This kind of thing really requires living there. Personally, I think that one of the best ways to be able to understand one’s own culture and to be able to adapt to others is to study them in light of the transcendent culture of the church, especially in its role as universal and transcending all cultural boundaries.
I can’t really make the before and after comparisons of how this experience has changed my life: I think I’m still in the ever present “during.” What would I do differently if I had it to do all over again? I don’t know. Is there anything about my life that I could change while still retaining my identity?
These are the parameters for this essay:
"What are the differences between your culture of origin and your host culture? Do these differences match your pre-departure expectation? Discuss the divergence in patterns of thinking, communication, problem solving, perception, and concept of time."
Like I mentioned before, I’m hard pressed to tell which is which. However, there are differences among them so I should be able to say something. It will probably be easiest to divide them into two categories: American and other. The two Alaskan cultures, even though technically in the US, will count as the latter.
American culture is entirely too stressed out. Everything has to be done right now; however, for most things, if you stand back and think about them, they’re really not that important. I think part of the problem might be the rampant individualism. Americans seem to be incapable of grasping the big picture. Instead, it’s more about self promotion achieved by the stomping on of others. I sometimes wonder if there’s something about the idea of identifying one’s self in terms of a community that may disqualify this from being a legitimate culture. Does an aggregate of egos count?
And then there’s the opposite extreme found in Southern Brazil. We had just moved down there over Christmas break from the Amazon Jungle. In that region, I had been going to an English speaking school in the city of Belem. We had six-week Christmas vacations, but this time, it got extended just a bit more.
When we arrived in Barretos, we found that there were no similar schools in the area. And because our parents wouldn’t send us away to a boarding school, they opted for a correspondence course, which was to be mailed from the States. We waited…
In the mean time, we found a house to live in that was across the street from the church in which we would be working. The property was surrounded by a wall, as most others were. If someone came to visit, they would not knock (they wouldn’t just come in either). Instead, they would stand outside of the gate on the sidewalk and clap. […and waited..] Sometimes they would opt to use the doorbell. But, when they did, we had to make it a point not to answer right away. The reason that they normally stood outside and clapped was that it was considered impolite to enter walled in property. However, the doorbell was situated where most doorbells are-next to the door (some houses had them outside the gate, but this often led to run-by ringings). The trick then was to allow them enough time to get back outside of the gate and stand there as though they had never entered the yard.
There was another missionary family, the Wood’s, living in the same town who had a son in the same grade that I was. We had decided that he would do just as well to take the correspondence course with me. His mother would then teach my youngest sister. So the expected package included books for him as well.
Besides the church across the street, we also spent Sundays working in two churches in Colina, a town about 20 minutes from Barretos. A lot of the communication problems came there, in the language itself. While my sisters and I picked it up fairly easily, my parents had a harder time. Hence, we had church services with teachings along the line that the Wise Men came to worship the naked Jesus (substituting the English new, which sounds like the Portuguese nu, for the Portuguese novo), Christ is our avocado (mispronouncing adivogado, which means advocate. Only those who spoke English caught this one), and we are gathered together to wash God (lavar-to wash, instead of louvar-to praise).
Sometimes the right word was used but we were unaware of the idioms. I once told an older gentleman that, if he were going to continue to talk to me, he would have to stop using so much profanity. He wasn’t doing this, of course: the words were simply larger words that I hadn’t learned yet. So I told him that I didn’t understand all the big words-palavraos, which, of course, meant that he was swearing at me.
Mrs. Wood went to the post office one day to mail something. The clerk looked at her and said, “Voce e Americana?” “Sim,” she answered. And, because she was an American, he gave her a box from the States that had been sitting there for two or three months. Christmas break was over in early June.
This essay was written in response to the question, "How would you describe your “multicultural personality in terms of attitudes and character traits? How do you think your “multicultural personality” was be [sic] affected by your intercultural experience?"
I haven’t actually been able to identify my culture of origin. Several options present themselves. Technically, I suppose, it would be Holland before 1645. Or perhaps it’s the Pacific Northwest-my birth place and where my family now lives. It could be that from which I have my first memories-Alaskan Eskimo. Maybe it’s the one that sent us out as missionaries and to which we periodically returned-Michigan Suburbia. It might also be the one in which I felt most comfortable-Southern Brazil. There’s probably something in all the cultures I’ve lived in that might make them qualify.
On the other hand, they’ve all seemed just a bit foreign. Even the first one that I remember. I just might have been fooled into thinking that I belonged there but for one minor detail: I was white. The natives made sure that I knew it. But then I’ve lived in other cultures where I was visibly different and it proved to be somewhat of a benefit.
I’ve always had a fairly easy time adapting to different cultures; however, I’ve never been able to do so completely. It’s been my observation that sometimes looking different will cause people to be more accommodating. In the Brazilian cultures I lived in, they knew that I was a foreigner (of course, my accent probably gave that away too); consequently, I was not expected to know all of the intricacies of their society in order to be accepted. The various kinds of American culture are different; I’ve lived away from it and for just long enough a time that I've never actually felt like a part of it. There are just enough subtleties that I don’t get and, because of this, just enough opportunities for miscommunication.
The perfunctory text isn’t much of a help. It speaks of “attitudes and character traits that promote cultural learning.” But the whole thing seems to be addressed to people from a single culture who are about to embark on a new adventure. This, however, is a perspective that I cannot relate to. I’ve been culturally crossed all my life. To the same extent that many people may find their home culture to be second nature, I find the same thing to be true moving between cultures. It’s not something I really think about.
Hess writes concerning regard for culture, “The person with a low regard for culture perceives cultural differences as a social handicap to be gotten rid of” (Hess, 14). I must not fit in this category. I would no sooner think this than I would imagine that personal differences were a social handicap to be gotten rid of. I may occasionally be annoyed at the specifics, but I see the differences themselves among people as a strength. I tend to focus on and accept the similarities within a culture rather than worrying about the differences between them.
Another interesting question is, “Do you want, during your travels, to remain stable and fixed, preserving what now is, or do you want to be changed by the experience?” (Hess, 15). I’m not exactly sure how to take this. For me, being changed over time through various cultures was what actually constituted stability. The change that I had the hardest time dealing with was when we finally settled down in one place.
I looked over the list of character traits for a successful cultural learner and find that I have most of them. It’s hard to tell though whether these are natural, that is, whether I would have had them anyway, or whether my experiences produced them. I will agree that they are important to have for anyone that is going to be able to move between cultures.
Some of the traits seem to present false dichotomies. For instance, “curious rather than passive” (Hess, 19). I think I’m both. Some of these traits seem to change depending on the specific culture. I tend to be much more guarded in American culture, which, even though by now I’ve been in it longer, is still the most foreign. I’m ready to move again. I don’t know-Bangladesh sounds promising.
A graduation requirement for Covenant is that one visit another culture and then write a series of essays about it. Since I grew up as an MK, I didn't actually have to go anywhere but was able to write the non-sponsored version. I'm not sure if there are any differences in the formats. The paper required reading a book entitled, Studying Abroad/Learning Abroad, by J. Daniel Hess. The cultures I listed having lived in are as follows:
Alaskan Urban
Amazon Jungle
Athabascan Indian
Dade County Kuyperian Subculture
Eskimo
Michigan Suburbia
Pacific Northwest
Southern Brazilian
Texan
The Introduction is here; the individual essays will follow in separate posts.
The cultures I have lived in have been as extreme as their geographical distance from one another. Returning to Michigan between them was probably a key factor in not really experiencing too much culture shock, which might have been the case had I gone straight from Alaskan winters with three hours of daylight and temperatures approaching 70 below to the jungles of the Amazon during rainy season, where the water would come down in sheets and immediately turn into steam. And yes, I think that geography and climactic conditions have a lot to do with the culture and personality of the people.
The Alaskan cultures were very reserved. People did socialize, but it didn’t really have to take the form of talking to each other. A typical visit to our home, this especially with the Eskimos, went something like this: someone would just walk into our house-they never knocked. If necessary, we would do whatever it took to get them warm (there was occasional danger of frostbite). Once this had happened, they would just sit there. We would just sit there. After an hour or two, they would say, “Bye,” and walk out. I like this approach.
I probably related better to the Athabascans. Theirs seemed to be a culture in transition. I never noticed then, but as I look back on it, there seemed to be a fairly large generation gap. A tribal society was gradually becoming Americanized. There was a strange mixture of respect for customs and the wisdom of the elders with a rather selfish mix of drunkenness and individualism. I preferred it the way it had been.
I recall that there was a married couple that I often liked to visit in the summers. Their names were Billy and Jessie. I would sometimes help her with various things around the house and yard. Since she was only in her mid-eighties, she was young enough to keep busy. Billy would sit in a rocking chair inside. I used to sit and listen to him tell stories. I can’t remember any of them, but I do recall being interested. They were usually about his life and there were plenty of them-when I met him, he had just turned 102.
The Brazilian people are a lot more friendly and outgoing and, consequently, harder to get to know one on one. Most of the interaction takes place in the market place; literally. The day of the average Brazilian woman (unless she were at least middle class, but this was considerably above average) was spent going to the market to buy enough food to prepare for that day. And since it wasn’t in the convenient pre-packaged portions that we are so used to, it would take much longer to get ready. This daily work had to include Sundays and so we rarely had anyone but children in our morning services.
But there was also a sense in which Brazilian culture, much like that in Alaska, was fairly laid back. Both of them were event oriented rather than time oriented. Punctuality just wasn’t that big a deal.
It’s hard to find a stopping point. I could go on and on here describing the various cultures I’ve been in but I think I’ve said enough to provide a feel for the diversity among them.
Anyone who has ever gone to Covenant College will be familiar with the program of integrating faith and learning. In many classes, this was natural. At other times, it felt forced. First semester PE, in my opinion, was one of these. The final exam consisted of writing a short essay that made use of various Bible verses that considered the topic of physical fitness. I was, and still am, of the opinion that this could not be done without imposing a serious injustice on whatever verses might have been chosen. But there was no way around it so I complied. I recently found the rough draft on an old floppy disk...
In Leviticus, the entire eleventh chapter is dedicated to clean and unclean foods. Surely if God would spend that much time on the subject, then he must be concerned about our fitness. His concern even extends to specific aspects of our nutrition. Leviticus 7:23 says, “Do not eat any of the fat of cattle, sheep or goats.” Only later did science discover why: this kind of fat is saturated.
In Daniel 1:11-16, Daniel and his friends insist on a diet of vegetables and water; they end up healthier. We too should follow his example and be strict vegetarians. Like the song says, “Dare to be a Daniel.” In contradiction to this, Exodus 12:9 tells us the correct way to prepare meat - roasted, not boiled. This tension is resolved when Jesus repeals the dietary laws, but only for those who can maintain their health and stay regular. Mark 7:19, “For it doesn’t go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body. (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean.’)” All other people would be well advised to use their Christian liberty to follow God’s dietary plan as outlined in his word.
It is well-known that people who eat at home before going out to eat will eat less at the restaurant. I Corinthians 11:34 substantiates this, “If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.” This judgment is spelled out in Proverbs 23:2, “and put a knife to your throat if you are given to gluttony.” There would be far fewer overweight people if only this Biblical command were followed. God takes the seven deadly sins very seriously.
A final word on serving guests. II Kings 6:28,29 relates this story, “This woman said to me, ‘Give up your son so that we may eat him today, and tomorrow we’ll eat my son.’ So we cooked my son and ate him. The next day I said to her, ‘ Give up your son so we may eat him,’ but she has hidden him.” We later discover that the king is upset about this, which forces us to ask ourselves why. It was a matter of table etiquette. If we ever serve a meal, it is bad form, and not very Christian of us, to do so expecting one in return. After all, what did Jesus do after feeding the 5000?
Or we could suppose that the Bible was never meant to be read as a collection of proof texts on fitness and diet. Not only is subjective interpretation too easy, but, invariably, the focus is turned on us and away from the God who has created people in his image and has pronounced them good. As evidenced by the final resurrection, those people whose souls he has redeemed will also have their bodies redeemed. Our attitudes toward our bodies are to be informed by the value that God has placed on them.
Incidentally, Acts 27:34 teaches that people who eat won’t go bald.
When I am broken and in need
Of one to make me whole,
I turn me to the Shepherd and
The Bishop of my soul.
Whose stripes are made my healing balm;
Whose cross, my means of grace;
Whose crown of thorns, the token that
He stands there in my place.
His arms, though opened wide, are not
Held back, I see, by nails;
But by a fervent love for me
Of God, which never fails.
For that, through faith, which keeps me his-
The power of God to save-
I clearly see when I behold
Him risen from the grave.
And by his life I know my trial
Of faith will soon be done:
I cannot suffer more than he
Whose trials my life has won.
So I resolve that when my faith
In Christ be sorely tried,
He will, though others curse his name,
By me be glorified.